Warranty plus 4 weeks Arrrggghhhh

Hodders · 28 Sep 2009 at 14:29

My 40D has just started to give an Err99 on every attempt to take an image.

I have tried:

removing both batteries (main and cmos)
multiple canon lenses
Cleaning lens contacts
different CF card
update firmware to 1.1.1

Nothing worked :-(

Is there anything else I can try ?

This has happened 4 weeks after the 12 month warranty has run out :-(

Is the EC Directive 1994/44/EC any use to me here (an EU directive implying a 2 year warranty) ?

The sales of goods act seems to imply that although the item has failed within the period that it is reasonable to expect it to last for the onus is on me to prove that it was defective.

rpstewart · 28 Sep 2009 at 14:59

The problem with Err99 is it's a catch all error code which covers about 95% of possible faults so diagnosing the true cause is tricky. The fact that it's a consistent error however points possibly (and unfortunately) to a mechanical failure.

All is not lost though, there are a large number of cases where Canon has replaced (for free) the shutter mechanism on cameras which are technically out of warranty but have had far less usage than the shutter's nominal rated life.

The first step is going to be to get a professional opinion on it though.

JBuk · 28 Sep 2009 at 15:01

Speak to the retailer, if the camera clearly hasn't been misused ,ie, no obvious signs of damage then I would expect that is proof enough the camera is broken through no fault of yours and you should be entitled to have it repaired under the SOGA

if that fails then speak to consumer direct and they will advise you

Hodders · 28 Sep 2009 at 15:07

After some googling it appears as though the EC law should apply in this situation. I have just sent the following (supplier details removed):

On the 14th August 2008 I purchased a Canon EOS-40D serial number xxxxxxxxx from you.

On the 28/09/2009 (58 weeks after purchase) the camera developed a fault. Canon UK have advised that the camera will need to be returned to them for investigation and that this falls outside of the standard 12 month warranty offered by Canon.

My understanding is that under these conditions EU directive 1994/44/EC applies. I have attached a copy of the directive for your reference. This applies a 2 year guarantee to all consumer goods sold in the EU (see paragraph (17) ). However, the relevant articles are paraphrased below:

Article 3
Rights of the consumer

1. The seller shall be liable to the consumer for any lack of conformity which exists at the time the goods were delivered.

2. In the case of a lack of conformity, the consumer shall be entitled to have the goods brought into conformity free of charge by repair or replacement, in accordance with paragraph 3, or to have an appropriate reduction made in the price or the contract rescinded with regard to those goods, in accordance with paragraphs 5 and 6.

3. In the first place, the consumer may require the seller to repair the goods or he may require the seller to replace them, in either case free of charge, unless this is impossible or disproportionate.

Any repair or replacement shall be completed within a reasonable time and without any significant inconvenience to the consumer, taking account of the nature of the goods and the purpose for which the consumer required the goods.

Article 4
Right of redress

Where the final seller is liable to the consumer because of a lack of conformity resulting from an act or omission by the producer, a previous seller in the same chain of contracts or any other intermediary, the final seller shall be entitled to pursue remedies against the person or persons liable in the contractual chain. the person or persons liable against whom the final seller may pursue remedies, together with the relevant actions and conditions of exercise, shall be determined by national law.

The letter should be taken to form my notification of the non conformity relating to the EOS-40D camera.

I would therefore request that you arrange for a refund/repair/replacement to be authorised as soon as is practical under Article 3, Section 3.

I am writing to you as you are the ‘final seller’ is referenced in Article 4 below.
I look forward to your response,
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

JBuk · 28 Sep 2009 at 15:30

The 2 years thing is not a warranty as such afaik, it is a time limit in which to claim damages (repair,refund,replacement) against the seller

in the UK under the SOGA we get 6 years

fini · 28 Sep 2009 at 15:36

EU Directives are never directly applicable unless you're dealing with a public body.

Basically you're looking at SOFA here. For this type of item, you'd expect it to last longer than 12 months and four weeks. After six months, however, the onus is on you to prove that the problem was effectively built in to the camera - that the problem was present, ready to bubble up, upon manufacture. This is for you to prove on the balance of probabilities.

I wish people would stop saying that SOGA gives you six years. SOGA never mentions six years, people are just quoting the limitation act and thinking they understand what they're talking about. For most items there is no way that you could claim the item should reasonably be expected to last > 6 years.

Derek W · 28 Sep 2009 at 15:40

rpstewart said:
The problem with Err99 is it's a catch all error code which covers about 95% of possible faults so diagnosing the true cause is tricky. The fact that it's a consistent error however points possibly (and unfortunately) to a mechanical failure.

Sorry to hijack the thread, but just when you mention that, I've recently had my 450D in for repair and 2 out of the 4 times I've used it since getting it back I've had that error but it has been resolved after removing the battery. I'm currently wearing the battery down till its got no charge then doing a full charge to see if that helps it any.

JBuk · 28 Sep 2009 at 15:42

fini said:
I wish people would stop saying that SOGA gives you six years. SOGA never mentions six years, people are just quoting the limitation act and thinking they understand what they're talking about. For most items there is no way that you could claim the item should reasonably be expected to last > 6 years.

As you say 6 years is the limitation of the act , which I was referring to, I didn't refer to it in any other way hence why I said about the eu directive & 2 years being a time limit in which a claim could be made so I'm not sure why you're on your high horse

SOGA said:
For up to six years after purchase (five years from discovery in Scotland) purchasers can demand damages (which a court would equate to the cost of a repair or replacement).

Hodders · 28 Sep 2009 at 16:59

Spoke deirect to Canon in Elstree and they have offered to treat this as covered by warranty. So a big shout out to Canon for being decent about it all.

I'll keep you posted.

JBuk · 28 Sep 2009 at 17:10

nice one

Johnny|lucidcomposure · 28 Sep 2009 at 17:20

I'm sure there is a grace period of a month or so ?

Hodders · 28 Sep 2009 at 19:49

I must admit, if this all works out, it will be a nice change to see a company actually value customer good will.

I might even buy a 24-70 f2.8L to reward them :-)

fini · 28 Sep 2009 at 20:19

JBuk said:
As you say 6 years is the limitation of the act , which I was referring to, I didn't refer to it in any other way hence why I said about the eu directive & 2 years being a time limit in which a claim could be made so I'm not sure why you're on your high horse

You do realise what you've just written makes no sense?

6 years is not 'the limitation of the act' - it is a figure set within the Limitation Act. SOGA itself sets no limitations.
You continue to go on about the EU Directive, which is not applicable unless he bought the camera from a public body (ie vertical direct effect).
The two years claim is incorrect.
The text you've 'quoted' isn't from the Sale of Goods Act, which doesn't even mention the word 'year' in it.

I don't mean to be appearing on a 'high horse', but when people post information which is clearly incorrect it's just unhelpful to the OP and everyone who subsequently reads it. It's becoming increasingly common on OcUK for people to post 'this is what the law says' when they really mean 'this is what I think the law should say'.

@Hodders - I'm glad it's getting sorted out

Hodders · 28 Sep 2009 at 20:59

fini said:
You continue to go on about the EU Directive, which is not applicable unless he bought the camera from a public body (ie vertical direct effect).

Can you explain what public body means and its relevance to the directive - you sound like you know far more about this and I'm curious.

fini said:
@Hodders - I'm glad it's getting sorted out

So am I ! The idea of having to cough up for fitting a new shutter mechanism (my guess) is not pleasant when the camera is only just out of warranty and has only take 5000 images.

fini · 28 Sep 2009 at 21:22

Hodders said:
Can you explain what public body means and its relevance to the directive - you sound like you know far more about this and I'm curious.

There isn't a list of what is and isn't a public body, but generally if it is a public body then they'll be calling themselves such. This would include the NHS, central government, county councils, the tax man, schools (obviously excluding private schools) - as a basic rule organisations that get most of their funding from the government. The reason that public bodies are important is to do with how a Directive works.

Basically a Directive works as a set of minimum levels that the national law of member states must meet. Lets take, for example a Directive decided on 1st September 2009 saying everyone must give me £1 a post. Member states must then create a law that gives me at least £1. They could create a law giving me £2, but not one that only gave me 20p. Until there is a national law then the Directive is meaningless - think of it as an order to the member states to go and create a law.

The question then arises of what happens if a member state decides it's just not going to create that law (the UK has done it several times). Well I couldn't then sue you for not giving me £1 a post because it's not the law in the UK. If I could then that would mean that you'd have to go and read every single Directive, which is unreasonable. If three years had gone past since the Directive (so it's now 1st September 2012) I COULD, however, sue any public body when they fail to give me £1. That is because, due to the government's failure to do as the EU says, I'm being disadvantaged - and the government (and thus public bodies as they receive government funding) shouldn't be able to profit from it. The government would then also get in trouble with the EU and get fined. The three year figure is because in some countries it takes forever to get legislation through so they need time - countries are penalised when they just ignore Directives, rather than just being a bit slow.

To take it back to the facts at hand. Say the government decided to create the NCS (National Camera Service) - a series of shops throughout the country selling cheap cameras. If there was a Directive saying you must get a minimum of 20 years warranty and parliament decides 'sod that, what a stupid Directive' then that will help the NCS because they then don't have to take back my 15 year old camera. Meanwhile public bodies in other countries are having to give that 20 year warranty, which is unfair. The EU is all about creating a fair, open market. As such, you could sue the public body and get your warranty. Meanwhile if you bought the camera from OcUK, well it's unreasonable of them to have to keep up to date with everything the EU does. It's not unreasonable to expect them to understand UK law though. As they're not in breach of UK law you couldn't sue them. Whilst they would be in breach of the EU Directive, for the reason we just stated, you can't sue them.

Hope that makes sense!

Namistai · 28 Sep 2009 at 21:42

Hodders said:
I might even buy a 24-70 f2.8L to reward them

To reward Canon, or yourself?!?

Great news tho, do keep us posted as it will be valuable information to all.

FYI, there is some good advice on consumer law here (for those who may not have seen it already): http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/index/your_world/consumer_affairs/buying_goods_your_rights.htm

JBuk · 28 Sep 2009 at 23:05

fini said:
You do realise what you've just written makes no sense?

6 years is not 'the limitation of the act' - it is a figure set within the Limitation Act. SOGA itself sets no limitations.

You continue to go on about the EU Directive, which is not applicable unless he bought the camera from a public body (ie vertical direct effect).

The two years claim is incorrect.

The text you've 'quoted' isn't from the Sale of Goods Act, which doesn't even mention the word 'year' in it.

I don't mean to be appearing on a 'high horse', but when people post information which is clearly incorrect it's just unhelpful to the OP and everyone who subsequently reads it. It's becoming increasingly common on OcUK for people to post 'this is what the law says' when they really mean 'this is what I think the law should say'.

@Hodders - I'm glad it's getting sorted out

Obviously you know more about the ins and outs than most people , but as I understand it you have upto 6 years from the purchase date in which to persue a claim, is that the case or not? if not then why does the key facts from http://www.berr.gov.uk/whatwedo/consumers/fact-sheets/page38311.html I quoted refer to "upto 6 years" ?

fini · 28 Sep 2009 at 23:32

The Limitation Act states that a civil claim (arising from most happenings (not including personal injury)) cannot be brought later than 6 years from the date from which the circumstances creating the claim occurred. In the case of SOGA your claim is based on how the item was, fundamentally, when you purchased it. As such, it is IMPOSSIBLE to claim under SOGA where it has been over six years since the goods were purchased.

That, however, is just an upper limit beyond which it is impossible to bring a claim. In most cases the period which a claim under s13 SOGA (which is what we're dealing with here) will be possible is, in actuality, a lot less. That is because the test is one of how long one would reasonably expect the goods to last. If you buy a melon, for example, you wouldn't be able to make a claim a year later because your melon's gone black. You're claim, for a scummy melon, would probably only be possible where the melon has become disgusting within maybe 2 weeks of buying it at most. Equally if you bought a sofa and hardly use it, but despite that it literally falls to bits after 2 1/2 years then yes you should have a claim as you'd expect a couch to last longer than that.

A further caveat is that for the first six months if a defect occurs in a good then it is presumed that the fault it inherent in the device and not through misuse etc. After six months, however, it is for the consumer to prove that the fault is inherent (to the civil standard). As such, any claim after six months is usually relatively difficult to make.

The reason it simply states 'up to 6 years' on the BIS site is because they're trying to sum up the whole of a relatively detailed act in 11 bullet points in the simplest way possible. They've not worded it terribly well, but I can understand if a web-dev quickly asked them 'what's the maximum you'd ever be able to bring a claim under SOGA' how that could have turned in to 'you have up to 6 years'.

JBuk · 29 Sep 2009 at 00:02

fini said:
The Limitation Act states that a civil claim (arising from most happenings (not including personal injury)) cannot be brought later than 6 years from the date from which the circumstances creating the claim occurred. In the case of SOGA your claim is based on how the item was, fundamentally, when you purchased it. As such, it is IMPOSSIBLE to claim under SOGA where it has been over six years since the goods were purchased.

That, however, is just an upper limit beyond which it is impossible to bring a claim. In most cases the period which a claim under s13 SOGA (which is what we're dealing with here) will be possible is, in actuality, a lot less. That is because the test is one of how long one would reasonably expect the goods to last. If you buy a melon, for example, you wouldn't be able to make a claim a year later because your melon's gone black. You're claim, for a scummy melon, would probably only be possible where the melon has become disgusting within maybe 2 weeks of buying it at most. Equally if you bought a sofa and hardly use it, but despite that it literally falls to bits after 2 1/2 years then yes you should have a claim as you'd expect a couch to last longer than that.

A further caveat is that for the first six months if a defect occurs in a good then it is presumed that the fault it inherent in the device and not through misuse etc. After six months, however, it is for the consumer to prove that the fault is inherent (to the civil standard). As such, any claim after six months is usually relatively difficult to make.

The reason it simply states 'up to 6 years' on the BIS site is because they're trying to sum up the whole of a relatively detailed act in 11 bullet points in the simplest way possible. They've not worded it terribly well, but I can understand if a web-dev quickly asked them 'what's the maximum you'd ever be able to bring a claim under SOGA' how that could have turned in to 'you have up to 6 years'.

That's a very detailed explanation, but is it not still telling us that you have upto 6 years in which to seek damages?

I do understand that does not mean goods should be expected to last upto 6 six years though, I don't think I implied that they should

fini · 29 Sep 2009 at 00:12

It's saying that six years is the theoretical maximum in which you have to bring a claim, but in most cases you wont be able to bring a claim a long time before that in any case and in many cases winning a claim after six months would prove difficult.